Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 211 of 1273 (540019)
12-21-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 3:00 PM


Re: l
What is a "small" and "large" population? Didn't you basicly say in your previous post that it's a relative term?
Yes, they are relative. The terms refer to size. A "small" size is relatively _smaller_ than a large size.
Why is 1000 a "large" population and 10 a "small" population?
Because 10 is less than 1000. Are you seriously having this much of a problem with this.
The numbering system we use is base 10. It goes from 0-9, then repeats with an additional digit added to the front. That new column of digits likewise goes from 0-9, increasing each time the column to the right cycles completely. This process is repeated infinitely forward.
So, 1000 takes up four columns of digits, while 10 only takes up two. Therefore 1000 represents a greater numeric value than 10.
I suggest that before we continue a discussion of biology (which is a fairly complicated science) you may want to familiarize yourself with 1st grade counting to prevent further confusion.
This is an assumption. Do you have any evidence that natural selection is strong enough to remove all effects of genetic entropy?
An animal which dies before it reproduces does not pass its genetic material onto the next generation. So, unless the Jew Wizard also has a magic beam to correct that problem, we can assume that that individuals "genetic entropy" is not being passed along.
This would be correct if it was not wrong. Rats have aworking GULO gene that let's them synthesize Vitamin C. Humans, Chimps and Guinea pigs do not. Their GULO gene is defective. Obviously evolution did not weed out that mutation. Therefore, your assertation that natural seelction weeds out ANY negative genetic changes if flawed.
How is their working GULO gene which allows them to synthesize vitamin C a negative genetic change?
Do I need to go into a detailed explanation of the words "negative" and "positive"?
If the deleterious mutations keep accumulationg, than obviously it will.
And if donkeys farted gold dust we'd all be millionaires. However, since they don't we aren't. And since deleterious mutations don't accumulate causing each individual in a population to spontaneously be unable to reproduce with any other, I suggest you drop this line of theoretical thinking.
It would be to complex and would fit the image size. But it doesn't help you anyway. I assumed that the offsprng inherits both parent's genetic material. The inherit both deleterious and beneficial mutations, and the count of both increases.
And that's a failure on your part.
Let's take an imaginary organism with only 4 genes called a 1234.
If a 1234 produces an offspring with 1 positive "a" mutation and 2 negative "b" mutations the offspring is:
1b2a34b.
Now that offspring meets up with another equally mutated 1234 named: 1b23b4a.
They mate and produce a number of offspring, that offspring is NOT going to have multiples of the mutations. It's going to have one or the other from each gene.
So, in this scenario is WILL have a 1b since both parents have it, but it could just as likely have a normal 2 or 2a. It could either have 4b or 4a.
Your chart does NOT account for this.
No, I'm not ASSUMING it, I KNOW it. Parents pass 100% of their genetic material to their offspring.
And again we see that what you "KNOW" is actually incorrect. You do not have 100% of your mother's DNA and 100% of your father's DNA. You have a mix which adds up to 100% (assuming you have no unique mutations yourself).
Actually there are no 100% neutral mutations. The so called slightly deleterious, or almost neutral mutations are the ones that are effectively neutral and can't be weeded out by natural selection. It's becasue their effect is to weak. Therefore, they are the ones that accumulate the most and are causing most of genetic entropy.
DNA duplication does not help you in any way, shape, or form. What do you intend to gain by duplicating genes?
Gene duplication neither adds new function nor deletes old function. It does, however, present a platform upon which later positive mutations can occur which provide new function without detracting from existing function.
Which are possibly the worst argument I heard in my entire life. Your arguments consist of telling me that I did nt draw enough details, and telligen me that I didn't include totally worthless mechanisms that which will either only slow down genetic entropy or won't do anything at all.
So, the "worst argument" you've ever heard in your life was pointing out that you failed to accurately represent the model you were claiming to offer as evidence?
That's odd. The "worst argument" I've ever heard was when someone claimed that a Jew Wizard magic beamed undetectable design into populations using Jew rays.
Wanna guess where I heard it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 3:00 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 5:11 PM Nuggin has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 212 of 1273 (540022)
12-21-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Nuggin
12-21-2009 3:53 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
quote:
Correct. "Common descent" is not a conclusion which arises from the definition of evolution alone. It arises instead from the evidence.
Great, as long as we're clear on that I'm happy. So, can you show me some evidence for common descent now?
quote:
The problem here is your failure to understand the mechanisms involved.
Oh, I doubt it.
quote:
Chickens have a gene which codes for teeth. Chickens also have a gene which codes for a beak. The teeth gene activates first, then gets overwritten by the beak gene.
If a chicken did not have the teeth gene, it would still have a beak. The beak gene arose later.
However, the teeth gene is still present.
What? The beak gene arose later? How do you know that? How do you know the gene was not always there?
quote:
The presence of a teeth gene is completely unexplainable using ID/Creationism. There is NO reason for its presence.
Oh it's very explainable. It was designed that way. Just because YOU can't see any reason for those genes there, that doesn't mean there IS no reason for them to be there. What bad logic. That's called an argument from incredulity. If the animal changes it's habitat, that the natural ques could affect it, and some genes could be either turned on or off. Which could be the case with chickens today.
quote:
The same is true for a chicken's long tail which grows, then shrinks, during embryotic development.
Yes, I know. It was designed that way.
quote:
Evolution explains these factors.
How?
quote:
Evolution does not predict "rain and/or no rain".
Yes it does. If it predicts animasl loosing and animals gaining traits, than it predicts someting and it's polar opposite. It predicts rain and no rain. Therefore, it's useless.
quote:
Evolution would have a HELL of a time explaining why a chicken embryo developed an exoskeleton and then lost it.
No, it wouldn't because evolution predicts everything and also nothing. And that's called convergent evolution. Animals can lose and gain traits. Therefore, chickens could gain and lose an exoskeleton. Just like water animals are supposed to have evolved feet and the ability to live on land, just to have in few million years lose all of that and go back into the water. Which is a case of the whale evolution.
quote:
Or why a chicken would share absolutely no DNA with any other bird.
It would simply mean that it evolved so much that all genes are different.
quote:
The first case would imply a relationship evolution does not predict between chickens and crabs, the second would imply a lack of relationship which evolution does predict between all birds.
Based on what logic does evolution predict that?
quote:
I suspect that you know this and are being deliberately dense as though making simple mistakes on your part would somehow convince me or others to throw out established science and embrace witchcraft. I think that you should reassess that strategy as it is extremely unlikely to work.
You are the one who believes in witchcraft. You believe people come from rocks.
quote:
And nylonese alone disproves that claim.
No, it doesn't you funny little man. It shows that genes can be fine tuned when needed by built in genetic machinery. This is what is known as natural genetic engineering. You see, living organisms have build in mechanisms like transposons that will be turend on on certain ques and will modify the genes to fit it's environment.
quote:
The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.
As you can clearly see here, this particular trait does not evolve by random mutations and natural selection. It is turned on on an environmental que. And can be gained whenever the bacteria needs it. It happens in mere 9 days.
The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste - creation.com
quote:
As does the E. Coli/Citrate experiments.
Nope. Wrong again.
quote:
I discuss Lenski’s fascinating work in Chapter 7 of The Edge of Evolution, pointing out that all of the beneficial mutations identified from the studies so far seem to have been degradative ones, where functioning genes are knocked out or rendered less active.
You see, all the mutation have been degenerations of already existing genes. No new functions were evoved.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O
quote:
In his new paper Lenski reports that, after 30,000 generations, one of his lines of cells has developed the ability to utilize citrate as a food source in the presence of oxygen. (E. coli in the wild can’t do that.) Now, wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it’s not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a citrate permease which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell’s membrane into its interior.
In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.)
And again. A supposed new function is not a new function at all. The bacteria have had ALL the machinery the needed to perform a certain function. In this case the the ability to utilize citrate as a food source in the presence of oxygen. Nothing new has evolved. A simple gene has only been needed to be tweaked a bit, to get expressed a bit more, and it allowed the bacteria to utilize citrate while oxygen is present. The machinery to do that was already there. it did not evolve. This is a great example of fine-tuning, not of evolution by random mutations and natural seelction.
quote:
As does the fossil record. Etc etc etc
Please explan how does fossile record give you any evidence agains ID? Or for evolution?
quote:
In science, a single failed prediction is reason to reassess your claim. In the case of ID/Creationism, every single prediction to date has been demonstrated to be wrong.
Show me one which has been shown to be wrong.
quote:
How many times are you willing to be wrong before you rethink your position?
You keep asserting I'm wrong. But you dont' actually show it.
quote:
I will go a step further and state that the words "small" and "large" are _ALWAYS_ relative.
Thanks. Than you do understand that you can't tell that only "small" populations will die because of geentic entropy, becasue they are "small" only in relative terms. And you also can't say that "large" populations will not suffer from genetic entropy, becasue they being "large" is also relative.
quote:
And that's ridiculous on its face.
Explain why.
quote:
I'm going to change a couple words and present the same sentence.
"Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because gravity and weather patterns shaped the lava and ash as it erupted."
"Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because the designer shaped the lava and ash as it erupted."
"Mt. Fuji is a perfect cone because Harry Potter and wizard magic shaped the lava and ash as it erupted."
Now, I believe #1 is correct. You believe #2 is correct. You, however, don't believe that #3 is correct. But #2 and #3 are the _EXACT SAME SENTENCE_.
Wrong. By the use of the explanatory filter we come to the conclusion that Mount Fuji is best explained by natural laws.
quote:
If you can't name the force nor give a mechanism through which the force has acted, no give examples of the result of the force, nor make predictions about future actions from the force, nor adequately explain the existing evidence allegedly left behind by the force then YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
Let me show you how painfully illogical this argument is by turning it against you...
If you can't show how life originated by evolution, than evolution is a useless theory and should be discarded!
See?
quote:
Obviously this is another example of you being deliberately dense because you don't want to concede the point.
There is nothing to concede except that the point is stupid.
quote:
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life because life must exist and be able to reproduce in order for evolution to occur.
In other words it's not supposed to explain the origin of life. In the same manner ID does not have to explain the mechanism of how the design got implemented.
quote:
ID doesn't explain the mechanism of ID because it's make believe.
Maybe evolution is makebelive because it can't exlain teh origin of life?
quote:
Can you not tell the difference?
I'm asking you the same question. Is it possible that evolution can't explain the origin of life becasue evolution is a big fat lie?
quote:
If IDers don't want to explain the origin of life, I won't force them. However, they are specifically claiming that functions are occurring yet they can't describe those functions. That's a big fail.
What functions are you talking about?
quote:
Further, you claim that IDers only job is to detect design, however they don't have a testable method by which a person can determine if a new thing is either designed or not.
Hmm... let's see.
The Design Inference - 272 pages about design detection.
No Free Lunch - 432 pages of how to detect design
Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence - 41 pages on how to detect design.
I suggest you start reading.
quote:
If I presented you with a perfect sphere, you could not tell me if it was magically designed by the Jew Wizard, cosmically designed by the Silver Surfer, or simply a piece of lava the dripped into water.
Maybe, maybe I could. Some things are designed but it's design isn't detectable. But some things are designed any are very well detectable. Just like the Rosetta stone. Do you disagree that it was designed?
quote:
It treats "intelligence" as a noun. Intelligence is not a noun, it is an adjective.
Naw... "Intelligent" is an adjective.
quote:
If you treat it as a noun are you saying that it is a being.
If I treat a rock like a noun am I calling it a being?
quote:
This being can not be seen, nor detected, nor described, etc etc etc. Therefore it is make believe.
Oh I see. So before people could detect radio waves, they were also make believe?
quote:
Now you are claiming that the designer (let's just call him the Jew Wizard since we all know that's what Demski is saying) "designed" using evolution.
You shouldn't call him that becasue that's not what I'm arguing for. When you go and argue with Dembski, than please do use that name.
quote:
So rather than allowing the observable, measurable and detectable solution which does NOT requiring adding in a layer of magic, you are suggesting that we arbitrarily add in the Jew Wizard just to make the people at the ID institute feel better?
No, becasue a.) Intelligence is not magic, unless you are claiming it does not exist, than that means you are not intelligent and your arguments are also not intelligent or reasonable, because you have no intelligence to create reasonable arguments.
b.) natural selection and random mutations alone can not produce the complexity of life we see today. So they are obviously not enough. Intelligence had to be involved.
And c.) I think there is no evidence that natural selection and random mutations were the mechanisms which implemented the design so I disregard them.
quote:
Why not have Intelligent Gravity? Gravity is the force two masses have on one another at a distance as overseen by a Jewish Wizard.
Why not have Intelligent Fire? Fire is the release of energy as carbon molecules are combined with oxygen when stared at by a Jewish Wizard.
How are these claims BETTER science by adding in Jewish Wizard Magic to the equation?
Becasue natural law is enough to explain gravity and all those effects. People coming from rocks in a span of 4.6 billion years is not.
quote:
Dembski HAS stated FOR THE RECORD that the Designer is the CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST GOD. (aka Jew Wizard)
Nope. He said that he believes it's God whi is the designer. But points out that that conclusion does not follow from the evidence that ID presents. It's simply his own belief.
quote:
YOU are linking Dembski's paper, therefore YOU are backing his claim. You can't have it both ways.
I can accept his math without accepting his theology.
quote:
But they can not quantify nor define this complexity. Nor can they detect the CAUSE of this complexity.
On the contrarry.
The Design Inference - 272 pages about design detection.
No Free Lunch - 432 pages of how to detect design
Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence - 41 pages on how to detect design.
Start reading.
quote:
AND, before you start "Jew Wizard" is not the CAUSE of complexity. "Jew Wizard" is the SOURCE of the Cause. The cause is "Magic Jew Beams".
Until you can measure the Magic Jew Beams in action, you don't have a cause.
I never said that.
quote:
Except that that is NOT what you do.
Than what am I doing?
quote:
Behe was forced to admit ON THE STAND that all of his claimed IR features were NOT IR.
Why should I care? I'm not talking about Behe now.
quote:
If inferring design is a LAST resort and you've incorrectly inferred design MULTIPLE times, then you are getting to your LAST resort entirely too early.
Where did I infer it incorrectly? Show me one case?
quote:
You need to do more steps. For example. AN EXPERIMENT.
That is an experiment. Using the Explanatory filter is an experiment.
quote:
Again, let me remind you that NO ONE on your side of the debate has ever even attempted to do an experiment to test your claims. Nor do they intend to.
The Design Inference - 272 pages about design detection.
No Free Lunch - 432 pages of how to detect design
Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence - 41 pages on how to detect design.
Start reading.
Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 3:53 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 5:36 PM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 222 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 12:57 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 213 of 1273 (540025)
12-21-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Nuggin
12-21-2009 4:33 PM


Re: l
quote:
Yes, they are relative. The terms refer to size. A "small" size is relatively _smaller_ than a large size.
Thanks. Than you do understand that you can't tell that only "small" populations will die because of geentic entropy, becasue they are "small" only in relative terms. And you also can't say that "large" populations will not suffer from genetic entropy, becasue they being "large" is also relative.
quote:
Because 10 is less than 1000. Are you seriously having this much of a problem with this.
But to "1000000000000000" "1000" is a small population. So it's all relative.
quote:
The numbering system we use is base 10. It goes from 0-9, then repeats with an additional digit added to the front. That new column of digits likewise goes from 0-9, increasing each time the column to the right cycles completely. This process is repeated infinitely forward.
So, 1000 takes up four columns of digits, while 10 only takes up two. Therefore 1000 represents a greater numeric value than 10.
I suggest that before we continue a discussion of biology (which is a fairly complicated science) you may want to familiarize yourself with 1st grade counting to prevent further confusion.
And I want you to understand that if you claim that a population is only small in relative terms, than you can't pick some random population, claim it's "large" and that it does not get affected by genetic entropy.
quote:
An animal which dies before it reproduces does not pass its genetic material onto the next generation. So, unless the Jew Wizard also has a magic beam to correct that problem, we can assume that that individuals "genetic entropy" is not being passed along.
What about the deleterious mutations in those individuals that do reproduce?
quote:
How is their working GULO gene which allows them to synthesize vitamin C a negative genetic change?
Do I need to go into a detailed explanation of the words "negative" and "positive"?
Obviously it isn't. The DEFECTIVE GULO genes are the ones that are negative. Yet natural selection did not remove them. Why?
quote:
And if donkeys farted gold dust we'd all be millionaires. However, since they don't we aren't. And since deleterious mutations don't accumulate causing each individual in a population to spontaneously be unable to reproduce with any other, I suggest you drop this line of theoretical thinking.
The only difference is that they DO accumulate. I already gave links to two articles that show that!
quote:
And that's a failure on your part.
Wait it's a failure on my part that I didn't draw 10.000.000 generations? What drugs are you on?
quote:
If a 1234 produces an offspring with 1 positive "a" mutation and 2 negative "b" mutations the offspring is:
1b2a34b.
Now that offspring meets up with another equally mutated 1234 named: 1b23b4a.
They mate and produce a number of offspring, that offspring is NOT going to have multiples of the mutations. It's going to have one or the other from each gene.
So, in this scenario is WILL have a 1b since both parents have it, but it could just as likely have a normal 2 or 2a. It could either have 4b or 4a.
Your chart does NOT account for this.
Wrong. I never said it will have multiple mutations. It will only inherit those beneficial and deleterious mutations that it's parents had. BUT!!! He will also gain more mutations of his own, this increasing the cound of both deleterious and beneficial mutations. Which means they do accumulate.
quote:
And again we see that what you "KNOW" is actually incorrect. You do not have 100% of your mother's DNA and 100% of your father's DNA. You have a mix which adds up to 100% (assuming you have no unique mutations yourself).
I know that. I said it gets PASSED ON 100% from the parent. Later on it gets recombined. But on average, the mutations do accumulate even with this mechanisms that slows down the accumulation.
quote:
Gene duplication neither adds new function nor deletes old function. It does, however, present a platform upon which later positive mutations can occur which provide new function without detracting from existing function.
First of all, this is an assumption. This has never been observed. Second, it doesn't help you because it doesn't remove the deleterious mutations from the genome. An organism will not care if it evolved new function if the effects of genetic entropy made it sterile.
quote:
So, the "worst argument" you've ever heard in your life was pointing out that you failed to accurately represent the model you were claiming to offer as evidence?
No, because your arguments were that I was not detailed wnough, which is stupid. Please you draw a picture that represents 10 million generations.
quote:
That's odd. The "worst argument" I've ever heard was when someone claimed that a Jew Wizard magic beamed undetectable design into populations using Jew rays.
Wanna guess where I heard it?
I have no Idea. I know that I never made that argument. And I know I'm not making it because I'm not a Christian. So now what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 4:33 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 5:44 PM Smooth Operator has not replied
 Message 219 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2009 8:05 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 214 of 1273 (540030)
12-21-2009 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 4:51 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
So, can you show me some evidence for common descent now?
I will happily go into great detail about ERVs in a different thread. It would unfortunately take up a lot of space and be deemed off topic here.
If you want info, I suggest you search for existing ERVs threads or start a new one and I'll join you over there.
The beak gene arose later? How do you know that? How do you know the gene was not always there?
Because proto-avians in the fossil record have teeth, not beaks. Please don't ask me to explain chronological time to you. If you don't understand "before" and "after", I'm afraid there's not much I can do to help you.
Oh it's very explainable. It was designed that way.
Can you think of a SINGLE example which could NOT be explained by "it was designed that way"?
Can "It was designed that way" ever be applied as a predictive model? Or is it ONLY usable to explain evidence after the fact? Do you have a predictive example we can test?
This is what is known as natural genetic engineering. You see, living organisms have build in mechanisms like transposons that will be turend on on certain ques and will modify the genes to fit it's environment.
And they also have pixie levers which the minions of the Jew Wizard can twist when they need to activate the Magic Jew Beam receptors.
You can invent as many magical functions as you want to explain natural things. However, until you can start DEMONSTRATING their existence, they are nothing more than make believe.
It predicts rain and no rain. Therefore, it's useless.
And "the Jew Wizard designed it that way" is useful how?
No, it wouldn't because evolution predicts everything and also nothing. And that's called convergent evolution. Animals can lose and gain traits. Therefore, chickens could gain and lose an exoskeleton.
No, that's not how evolution works. Chickens could not spontaneously gain an exoskeleton. If that were to occur that would be unexplainable using the evolutionary model.
Likewise, if a donkey suddenly sprouted fully formed wings, it would be unexplainable using our model.
Our model is falsifiable.
"Jew Magic" after the fact is NOT falsifiable because it is make believe and make believe can encompass anything.
As you can clearly see here, this particular trait does not evolve by random mutations and natural selection.
Re-read your quote. You are drawing a conclusion from a sentence which contains the word "suggests".
Please explan how does fossile record give you any evidence agains ID? Or for evolution?
Again, if you don't understand the concept of a linear timeline, there is very little I can explain to you. This is sort of a fundamental part of your existence. Denying it really makes this conversation impossible since you can't sort out the sequence of questions and answers.
I can accept his math without accepting his theology.
You are claiming that Dembski is not stating who the "intelligence" is. That's a lie. Either you are ignorant and therefore being honestly dishonest, or you are being intentionally dishonest.
Since I've pointed out that he's admitted that it's the Jew Wizard that's doing the designing, you can no longer honestly claim to not know that.
That is an experiment. Using the Explanatory filter is an experiment.
Clearly it isn't, since your team has failed to apply it to thing which have been demonstrated to be evolved and not designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 4:51 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-22-2009 8:58 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 215 of 1273 (540031)
12-21-2009 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 5:11 PM


Re: l
The DEFECTIVE GULO genes are the ones that are negative. Yet natural selection did not remove them. Why?
Because they aren't negative if they aren't having a negative effect. There are tree rats in my back yard. They may or may not have a working GULO gene. However, since every single house on my block has lemon trees in the yard, whether or not this gene exists in these rats is moot.
The only difference is that they DO accumulate. I already gave links to two articles that show that!
Your claim is that the mutation rate is high enough that all individuals will spontaneously be unable to reproduce with one another. You've provide NO evidence to support this claim.
Wait it's a failure on my part that I didn't draw 10.000.000 generations?
No, because you failed to include genetic material from both parents.
Wrong. I never said it will have multiple mutations. It will only inherit those beneficial and deleterious mutations that it's parents had. BUT!!! He will also gain more mutations of his own, this increasing the cound of both deleterious and beneficial mutations. Which means they do accumulate.
Okay, let's simplify:
You are claiming that in a made up world of your made up animals reproducing in a made up way using made up mutation rates and a made up effect of natural selection, your population will do something different than what happens in the real world under real conditions.
You're right. Your make believe world is different than our real world. Congrats.
First of all, (gene duplication) is an assumption. This has never been observed.
Now I know you are deliberately being dishonest.
Is that because you think that the Jew Wizard rewards lying more than truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 5:11 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 216 of 1273 (540036)
12-21-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 2:46 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Evolution predict everything, therefore evolution predicts nothing. If evolution can accont for both outcomes (working and vestigial genes which are polar opposites) with the same mechanisms, than it predicts nothing and is useless.
If you predicts that tommorow will eitehr rain or will not rain, you have effectively predicted nothing. The same goes for evolution. Genes will either work, or they will be vestigial. This isn't a prediction, it's a copout.
You might as well complain that since the theory of gravity explains both why the book I just dropped fell to the ground and why the Moon doesn't, it's "useless" and a "cop-out".
If you really don't understand what the theory of evolution has to say about vestigial genes, then have a look for my recent posts on the subject. It's off-topic here though.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 2:46 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-22-2009 9:01 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 217 of 1273 (540051)
12-21-2009 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by traderdrew
12-21-2009 8:58 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Hi traderdrew
You said earlier that Darwinism proceeds under the assumption that there isn't a designer, but no more so than ALL science proceeds under the assumption that there isn't a magical man behind a curtain pulling levers.
traderdrew writes:
Let's go back to the comment this minor tangent stemmed from in the first place.
the very fact that you proceed under the assumption that there is one (a designer) invalidates your method.
I would agree with Stephen Meyer that every scientist or everyone has a motif but motives are irrelevant to accessing the validity of a claim. I think the evidence should stand on its own and the motivations behind the statements should not disqualify them. I think when someone questions the integrity or motives of an individual, I suspect a red herring.
Ok fair enough then... motive has no bearing on the validity of a claim. Evidence SHOULD stand or fall on its own. The problem is that for centuries now we've been accumulating this evidence. The evidence demonstrates natural forces at work, and NOT some sort of mystical controller. Why now, when we've come so far, do ID proponents want to take us backwards and start plugging chocolate sprinkles into the equations?
As has been pointed out many times now, the moment anyone introduces the supernatural into science, it isn't science anymore.
No weight can be placed on unsubstantiated claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by traderdrew, posted 12-21-2009 8:58 AM traderdrew has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 218 of 1273 (540055)
12-21-2009 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 10:12 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Okay than, explain how do those patterns show evolution.
Because they only make sense in the light of the evolutionary history of the organisms (as inferred from the other evidence). Or a designer who's deliberately trying to mess with our heads (see my post on actualism, above).
And while you're at it, define evolution.
You've made how many posts on the topic and you still need evolution defining for you? It's heritable changes in a lineage.
None. Which of the words "WHAT" "NUMBER" "DEFINES" "A" "POPULATION" "TO" "BE" "CALLED" "SMALL"?
Those words did not actually appear in the post to which I was replying. But in answer to your question, a population is called small if it is small. I really don't know how to make this concept any simpler.
If you wish to know at what point we might expect small size to lead to genetic catastrophe, then in order to answer that, I should require a histogram relating the effect on fitness of mutations to their probability.
Ecologists generally use the "50/500 rule" --- an effective (i.e. breeding) population of 50 is needed to avert genetic disaster in the short run, 500 in the long run. But this is just a rule of thumb and varies from species to species.
That will be true once when you told me exactly what is wrong with this here article.
http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf
First, his opposition of "design" to "chance". Does he really know no better? Has he never heard of evolution, or is he ruling it out a priori?
There are subtler blunders, but that's the most obvious one. In order to detect design, we need a way of distinguishing things that were designed from the product of evolutionary algorithms (and other mechanisms, such as the random search that tailors our lymphocytes to the pathogens from which they defend us.)
That how do you explain the fact that I have no problem understanding anyone else?
I am not at all convinced that this is a fact.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 10:12 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-22-2009 9:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 219 of 1273 (540056)
12-21-2009 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 5:11 PM


Re: l
The only difference is that they DO accumulate. I already gave links to two articles that show that!
Whereas observation of reality shows that they don't; and reality trumps what people write down on bits of paper. I know that this flies in the face of the fundamental dogma of creationsism, but such is the case.
Ah, what avails the classic bent,
And what the cultured word,
Against the undoctored incident
That actually occurred?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 5:11 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 220 of 1273 (540073)
12-22-2009 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Coyote
12-21-2009 12:09 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Science does not deal with truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH.
I agree. Science does not seek the truth directly. Its power is in falsification. I do have a certain amount of respect for science. Its basic form has even helped me in my job. I sometimes seek competing expanations to see how well it may fit the evidence. I have found this has saved some time.
There have been other times in my life when a certain something has worked for me and scientifically minded people on the net have stated it is bull*&%) but if it works for me then, the hell with what science says.
And what "Darwinism" is I haven't a clue.
I believe the term is neo-Darwinism. I would have thought you would have known what I was referring to neo-Darwinism even though I used a simplified term. I am not totally against neo-Darwinism. I am a believer in chaos.
You might have wondered why a designer would conceal the evidence of design. It does seem to me the designer is hidden but science has become sophisticated enough to find some of the evidence hinting of a designer. Digital information in DNA is one good example. There is obviously some room for sequence alterations but science apparently believes (but has not proven) the first cell would have had at least 250 to 400 genes in order to perform its necessary functions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 12-21-2009 12:09 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 1:06 AM traderdrew has replied
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 3:30 AM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 221 of 1273 (540075)
12-22-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Nuggin
12-21-2009 12:35 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Since in both cases I'm assuming something, we can not possibly design any sort of machinery based on either scenario - since any such machine would be inherently fatally flawed by these assumptions.
That's REALLY what you want to argue here? Are you sure?
I would say go with the rational explanation. Very few people if anyone would question the obvious explanation. When questions are not properly answered then, you have controversy such as the debate around intelligent design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 12:35 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 1:09 AM traderdrew has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 222 of 1273 (540076)
12-22-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Smooth Operator
12-21-2009 4:51 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Let me show you how painfully illogical this argument is by turning it against you...
If you can't show how life originated by evolution, than evolution is a useless theory and should be discarded!
See?
I can't believe I'm going to have to go over this again.
Evolution makes a claim about how speciation occurs and offers mechanics through which this happens.
It does not need to explain the origins of life for two reasons. First, it doesn't claim to try and explain the origins of life. Second, it works off the assumption that life exists.
A person describing an internal combustion motor does not need to prove that fire exists. They start with the assumption that fire exists and proceed to describe the mechanisms which utilize fire to power their motor.
ID is offered as a cancellation/replacement of evolution. Therefore, it is being offered as an ALTERNATIVE explanation for how speciation occurs. Therefore it _MUST_ offer mechanisms which are _BETTER_ at explaining the observable testable data than those seen in evolution.
So far, ID supporters have NEVER even attempted to do this. Until they do, there's really nothing to discuss. It's simply a bunch of cry babies whining that real scientists aren't taking their LACK OF EVIDENCE seriously.
Come up with a mechanism. Develop a method through which you can test it. Design an experiment and run it. Collect data. Then publish it. THEN we can START to talk about whether or not ID should be considered legitimately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-21-2009 4:51 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Larni, posted 12-22-2009 7:02 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 238 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-22-2009 9:31 AM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 223 of 1273 (540077)
12-22-2009 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 12:43 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
There have been other times in my life when a certain something has worked for me and scientifically minded people on the net have stated it is bull*&%) but if it works for me then, the hell with what science says.
This is EXACTLY the same quote I hear when debating homeopaths. The problem is bullcrap is bullcrap whether or not it "works for you".
Just because you believe that you were cured of your cold as a result of taking the homeopathic "medicine" doesn't mean that the medicine ACTUALLY did anything.
Your singular biased observations are NOT sufficient evidence to judge the world.
You might have wondered why a designer would conceal the evidence of design. It does seem to me the designer is hidden but science has become sophisticated enough to find some of the evidence hinting of a designer.
So, you believe that there is a super smart Jew Wizard hiding in space who cleverly designed things to look as though they weren't designed but that he's so stupid that YOU have figured out his trick.
That's a HUGE EGO you've got there claiming to be "smarter than God".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 12:43 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 1:25 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 224 of 1273 (540079)
12-22-2009 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by traderdrew
12-22-2009 12:57 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
When questions are not properly answered then, you have controversy such as the debate around intelligent design.
Right. Questions like:
"What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?"
"Who/What is the Creator?"
"Where is the Creator?"
"What mechanism did he use to create?"
"Is this mechanism still in use?"
"Does the Creator still exist or did he vanish, and if so, when? And how can you tell?"
"How many Creators were there?"
"Who Created the Creator and using what mechanisms?"
Care to take a crack at ANY of these? It would really help damp down the "controversy" over Intelligent Design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 12:57 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 1:39 AM Nuggin has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 225 of 1273 (540081)
12-22-2009 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Nuggin
12-22-2009 1:06 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
That's a HUGE EGO you've got there claiming to be "smarter than God".
No, I am not implying that the designer wished to remain undetected (assuming the designer wasn't an alien). It seems to me there is enough knowledge and understanding to make a case either way. If that is what God wished to do then I think that is cool. Why would a god wish to force someone to believe? This could lead to resentment.
And about that stuff I have personally experienced; man, I have seen some things that have left me speechless. I have seen science and metaphysics meet not that I would expect you would believe it.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 1:06 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 1:52 AM traderdrew has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024